I disagree with this take. I get that LLM produced text is filled with crappy, over the top writing in pretty much all cases, but if a prompter/writer/blogger is using it iteratively, the LLM output is going to be way better than their writing. Also, if a person is using LLMs to write articles, do you really want to see their likely even worse writing?
I disagree with this take. I get that LLM produced text is filled with crappy, over the top writing in pretty much all cases, but if a prompter/writer/blogger is using it iteratively, the LLM output is going to be way better than their writing. Also, if a person is using LLMs to write articles, do you really want to see their likely even worse writing?
Yes, I want to see the prompts. Yes.
But I won’t promise to read it, because it’s bad writing.
So maybe it would be better to not use the LLM to draft writing that pretends to be you. That would be easier on everyone who reads.
Instead we live in a world where all of us are reading through a cynical lens.
This comment was written without using any form of AI.
Was this written by an LLM?
> This comment was written without using any form of AI.
That's exactly what ChatGPT would write if it didn't want us to think it wrote that comment!
In this ever-changing world, it pays to delve beneath the surface of a casual claim— if you know what I mean.
Nice catch. Look at this at the end:
> jc is open source. If you have improvements, have your Claude open a PR against mine. I don’t accept human-authored code.
So it seems not only does the author reject human-authored PRs, they also refuse human-authored blog posts.
I wonder if they also only want agents to read it, not people.